Reader comments

Th ereality is that cases are given indiscriminately to the judges to handle. Therefore, it does not mean that Gay people’s cases will end up beign heard by Gay judges or cases about dsicrimination beimg heard by minorities. It may appear to increase such chances, but since the law must be demonstrably fair, anything that migght seem like a leaning to any side, will be guarded against.

As usual, this moronic government does everything to stay politically correct, but do bugger all about managing justice.

We need decent judges that are fair, honest, unbiased and just.
Their sex, colour, age, sexuality, disability or shoe size should not even come into the equation. It’s about time this whole positive discrimination bullsh!t got sacked for once and for all.

the govt can whitter all it wants, the “system” will continue to work as it always has UNLESS radical changes are made to break up the network where people who prosecute cases are favoured, people “like us” are favoured, people “I knew at school/uni” are favoured.

A barrister friend of mine once bewailed fighting cases against the prosecution AND the judge, because the judge (and many of his ilk) were establishment lackies. While there are probably many judges who are fair, a lot are “new school” appointees who feel beholden to the establishment.

Anything that can change this culture is good, but I don’t think quotas, targets and diversity will work; lickspittles come in all colours and sexes. We need a method where any barrister who wants the red gown can apply, and a fair system of selection – including lay panel members – will obtain.

It’s unlikely of course, because dispensation of “justice” is a significane establishment power

PS my key words were “integrity” and “reliant”; does the randomiser have a sense of humour?

Whilst I agree with RobN’s comments (and Brians’s too – this government seems determined to drum up as many BNP votes as possible by its stupid and dangerous exclusion of our white working class thus heightening their very real sense of marginalisation), I think its laughable if the government thinks gay people are ‘under-represented’ in the judiciary – I know of many gay judges and magistrates and understand this has always ben the case, Heaven forbid the suggestion (!) but maybe we are ‘over-represented’ as we certainly are in central and local government. Whether these gay judges are out or not is altogether another matter.

Brian: If a person gets a job as a judge they are no longer working class. I’d debate whether you could even call yourself working class if you were qualified to be a judge.

The thing is diversity isn’t really important to the integrity of Judges, they’re supposed to be impartial and therefore their gender, race and sexuality is irrelevant, so I don’t think the Justice Department will do what is necessary to promote diversity.

Working class people can become Magistrates, though I don’t think most people of any class have the time until they’re retired, then again I’d abolish Magistrates given the chance.

Dave: I’d not see shoehorning people unsuitable for the job just to satisfy political correctness and quotas as “Progress”.
If that isn’t a retrograde step, I don’t know what is. No wonder so many public sector organisations take so long to get anything right.

If the person most suitable for the post happens to be gay, then all well and good, but if there’s someone better, then it goes to them.

And as for “grief”, Thomas (8) agreed with me.
I’m sick to death of all this walking on eggshells in case we piss off some minority faction.

RobN go away. You are awful. You would drag us all backwards. You do nothing but try and puncture and sabotage every bit of good news that appears on these pages. If you are really gay then you are the saddest form of gay man that must have ever existed. Doesn’t your local Tory party like you? Have they sent you packing? Is that why you’re here? Because you’ve got nowhere else from where to attack us? It must be awful being consumed by bitterness and hatred towards gays.

I can support emplacing the “minority” candidate if they are as ggood as their competitors, mainly because they are under-represented: it’s called affirmative action. I would not support putting less-able candidates in merely because of their minority status – that’s insupportable and unfair (and illegal). It would also be counter-productive to the ultimate aims of diversification.

More minority representation is good because it would bring a better rounding to the judiciary

Mihangel apYrs: To what advantage does this make? Anyone who has ever interviewed someone for a job knows that you can’t always say “this person is *better* than that one. The fact that employing a gay person in the judiciary may be an advantage, but so might the fact that they were a missionary in Africa, or used to be in the army. It is just another plus or minus factor. You cannot give people jobs simply on the basis of who they choose to sleep with, or because they have black curly hair and thick lips.

How would you feel if you went for the job and they said, “Sorry, we would have given you the job, but we’ve got loads of gay people but Eskimos are currently under-represented, so we gave the job to Nanook”?

RobN you have referred to people who have black curly hair and thick lips.I hope you would just as spontaneously refer to people who have straight hair and thin lips! But I have a feeling from your tone that you probably consider your own lips “normal” and not thin and the lips of people with black curly hair are all “thick”!

Steve: Please don’t go on some knee-jerk anti-racist rant because I specifically avoided the word “black” to prove a point that people are being chosen because of physical characteristics rather than inherent capabilities. Or should I not use the word “black” in case it offends your sensitivities?